By Daniel Bampoe
In a significant development in the ongoing judicial crisis, the Supreme Court has dismissed a preliminary objection raised by the Attorney General’s Department aimed at excluding members of a committee probing the potential removal of suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo from a suit she filed.
The decision marks yet another pivotal moment in a legal battle that has gripped national attention and raised questions about judicial independence, executive interference, and constitutional due process.
Background to the Judicial Crisis
The unfolding legal and political saga stems from President John Mahama’s controversial suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo on April 22, 2025.
The suspension followed multiple petitions filed by civil society actors and political figures alleging misconduct and constitutional breaches by the Chief Justice.
In response, President Mahama initiated impeachment proceedings under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution by directing the Chief Justice’s case to a five-member investigative committee.
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, however, contends that the process violates her constitutional rights.
In early May, she filed a writ at the Supreme Court, seeking constitutional interpretation on various issues, including whether she can waive her right to a private (in-camera) hearing during the committee’s deliberations.
Her suit also challenges the prima facie determination that triggered the impeachment process and seeks to restrain the committee from continuing its proceedings altogether.
Legal Arguments and Court Proceedings
The latest hearing focused on a preliminary legal objection filed by Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai.
The state argued that the members of the investigative committee — including Justices Scott Pwamang and Adibu-Asiedu — were not expressly named in the originating writ and thus could not be considered legitimate parties to the case.
The Attorney General’s office insisted that because the Chief Justice did not directly name them as parties to be affected by the court’s decision, they should be struck out from the suit.
But the argument was firmly rebutted by Godfred Yeboah Dame, representing the suspended Chief Justice.
Godfred Dame emphasized that the core reliefs sought by Torkornoo were clearly directed at the committee members’ actions and authority, which made them necessary and proper parties to the case.
“It is not merely about being named,” Dame argued, “but about whether the person’s legal rights and obligations are implicated in the reliefs sought.”
Presiding over the matter, Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie led the five-member panel in a ruling that agreed with Dame’s submissions.
The court ruled that the reliefs being pursued by the suspended Chief Justice directly involve the committee members, thereby justifying their inclusion in the suit.
The preliminary objection was therefore dismissed, clearing the way for the full hearing of the Chief Justice’s substantive injunction application.
What’s at Stake
The legal battle raises critical constitutional questions about the interpretation of Article 146, the separation of powers, and the scope of presidential authority in suspending a sitting Chief Justice.
For many legal observers and civil society groups, the case has become a litmus test for Ghana’s judiciary in defending its independence amidst intensifying political scrutiny.
Meanwhile, reactions across the legal and political spectrum have been mixed.
Members of the opposition have decried the suspension as an act of executive overreach, while government loyalists maintain that the process follows due constitutional procedure.
Legal advocacy groups, including the Ghana Bar Association and the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), have called for transparency, due process, and a measured approach to resolving the impasse.
With the Supreme Court now set to hear the injunction and constitutional interpretation, the fate of Chief Justice Torkornoo — and the integrity of Ghana’s highest court — hangs in the balance.
Next Steps
The Supreme Court is expected to reconvene in the coming days to hear substantive arguments on the injunction application.
If granted, the ruling could temporarily halt the committee’s work and potentially nullify aspects of the removal process, pending the court’s final interpretation of the constitutional questions raised.
